Tag Archives: AMP v. Myriad Genetics

USPTO Issues New Myriad Guidance

Kaylee_dna_115x76

On Tuesday, December 16 the United States Patent and Trademark Office issued a revised guidance on subject matter eligibility under § 101 in light of recent Supreme Court Decisions in Alice v. CLS Bank, Mayo, and Myriad. These new guidelines are a response to extensive feedback provided from industry leaders and inventors over the last several months. (BIO provided both initial and supplemental comments on the Office’s March Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance). Public comments on the Read More >

Patently BIOtech  |  Leave a comment  |  Email This Post
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

BIO Submits Joint Supplemental Comments on the USPTO March Guidance

Supreme Court

Last week BIO, alongside a number of member companies and private individuals, submitted supplemental comments to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office concerning their March 2014 Guidance on patent subject matter eligibility. In July, BIO and international bio-industry associations had submitted comments to the USPTO expressing concern about the Guidance, and its impact on the patent eligibility of biotechnology inventions. Since July, USPTO staff has indicated a final revision to the Guidance would be released Read More >

Patently BIOtech  |  Leave a comment  |  Email This Post
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Detailed Report Examines the Crucial Role of Patents in Genetic Testing

shutterstock_27291016

In The Critical Role of Patents in the Development, Commercialization, and Utilization of Innovative Genetic Diagnostic Tests, Professor Holman argues that advocates for weakening patent protection have fundamental misconceptions on the role of patents in genetic testing. Opponents assume that patents negatively impact patient access to genetic diagnostic testing. They believe that patents inhibit research that could lead to new or improved versions of genetic tests, and that patent holders charge higher prices as exclusive Read More >

Patently BIOtech  |  Leave a comment  |  Email This Post
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

PTO Patent Examinations in the wake of Mayo and Myriad

stopped-media-115x76

Biotech patent applicants are finding themselves in uncharted waters.   After the Supreme Court’s decisions in Mayo Collaborative Svs. v. Prometheus Labs and Ass’n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, companies have been trying to understand how these decisions will impact the industry. A recent study supported by BIO, in collaboration with Bloomberg BNA and the law firm of Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi analyzed how Mayo and Myriad have changed patent eligibility for biotechnology. Read More >

Patently BIOtech  |  Leave a comment  |  Email This Post
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Debunking the Myth: Your Genes are Patented

MYTH: YOUR GENES ARE PATENTED. FACTS: IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO PATENT YOUR GENES The term “gene patent” is a misnomer, because genes as they exist in the body cannot be patented. Because a naturally-occurring gene – even a newly-discovered one – cannot be patented, patents don’t provide ownership rights over our genes, and nobody can infringe a patent by having a certain gene, or by passing it on to their children. If genes aren’t Read More >

Patently BIOtech  |  2 Comments  |  Email This Post
Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,